A Systematic Review of Grounded Theory Methodology: Re-Grounding in Weber

Abstract

Grounded theory is considered one of the most rigorous methodologies in qualitative research. Debate on its philosophical paradigm has trended toward endless over the past 50 years, as it was not clarified in its first canon. Scholars from multiple disciplines and philosophical backgrounds have contributed throughout its development, necessitating a comparison of the evolving dynamics of philosophies in the key grounded theory methodological schools. This article provides a systematic comparison at both substantive and formal levels, analyzing the philosophical approaches and methodological designs of Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz. The philosophical paradigms chosen by these three key schools and how they are perceived by researchers who adopted grounded theory methodology are presented. Formal grounded theory methodological design is limited in comparison to substantive grounded theory methodology. A novel Weberian approach is proposed to re-ground formal grounded theory methodology; contributing to initial grounded theory methodological design.